Without native bindings, you'd still need to write all the UI code in C, and then you could use Swift interop to call your C function that does the layout. That's not what most would think of as Swift support if you're writing C.
8,774 karma · joined November 11, 2012
For free market choice on which jobs pay more -- I think this one is pretty clear. Do you think differently?
As for biological preference, I don't think it takes into account the average pay at all. Career path is usually chosen at a younger and more idealistic age, and probably more importantly - poorer countries have women overriding their preferences and going into higher paid lines of work, while richer countries let women do what they want. As per this very study. In the case where money doesn't matter because your family is rich, biological preferences become more important and people stop choosing based on average pay. So the biological differences seem to explain it really well.
We've stopped discussing some key concepts just because it's not allowed anymore. I guess we need the bravery of enlightenment era philosophers once again - to stand up to social pressure in the name of open ideas.
There's only one way to know: get a free market and see whether the companies that hires all Malasians or no Malasians or a mix of Malasians and non-Malasians comes out on top in aggregate.
(Malasians used as an example, not because of anything specific about Malasians. Feel free to replace with Lithuanians if you want. Although the specific cultures involved are probably very important. A culture that has a focus on technology and work ethic would likely beat out a culture that focuses on extended deep sea fishing when it comes to building a startup.)
Such a company could be at an advantage in a free market where there were no rules on employment discrimination.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3030621/
And of course, far more studies that have been going on for decades.
The ability of people to point out factual errors should be kept for small details, not the all too common practice of posting articles without first getting them checked by experts. Why should unpaid experts have to go and spend hours posting corrections of the articles in Washington Post? Washington Post should be finding and paying experts to do this pre-publication.
There needs to be some level of quality control at the Washington Post if they want to keep their reputation -- which they have tarnished very poorly since their push for the Iraq War and the role they had to making that war happen.
I'd recommend reading the Washington Post with a bit more skepticism. You're only noticing their mistakes on this article because it's something you're familiar with, but they make many mistakes in their other articles too. You probably just don't pick it up as you're not an expert in those other fields, and it sticks out in this one like a sore thumb because you are.
On one hand, technological improvement has deprecated thousands of farm workers over hundreds of years, but you're making the argument that it's only happening now because some factory workers lost their jobs. People have been losing their jobs for a long time. Blacksmiths are very rare now a days, but were very common only a short while ago.
The second argument you make is that people will have to work multiple menial jobs to barely get by, yet you also state that menial jobs like factory work are going to be replaced by machines. If the jobs are replaced, nobody is going to be doing multiple menial jobs as those jobs won't exist.
There's only two options in such a doomsday scenario where all work is done by machines. Either humans will be given some kind of basic income, or the rich will get an army of machines and wipe out all the people they don't want. Or a combination of the two, such as humans given a basic income until the rich get tired of it and then build an army of machines to wipe everyone out.
I don't think calling for everyone you disagree with to be fired is the right way forward.
It's not really a useful comparison for most uses of java though.
"If a human can't theoretically perform the task with a lot of time and a pocket calculator, then neither can an AI."
But it's not really saying much as that applies to almost everything.
As for the core idea of designing AI UX better to get people to trust it - maybe put a list of all the data being collected and stored up front, and make it possible for the user to easily and permanently delete specific data while still allowing them to use the system. Also an explanation of actions taken: "the system took this photograph because 76% of testers found photographs with these particular features (high light level, human looking at camera, action) to be desired." You could probably trace your dataset back to these features by collecting all the photos from training that matched to those features and manually labeling them.
In short: un-black-boxify your UX.
> FAKE NEWS - A TOTAL POLITICAL WITCH HUNT!
He doesn't use the intellectual tone when he talks about it.
> Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect works as follows.
For a certain type of person -- the type that reads HN -- this scholarly style is what we expect. It lays out the biases and beliefs we hold in a manner we expect. It backs it up with some seemingly solid logic that we can relate to. We've all seen at least one badly written scientific article where we know the facts better. So we take it as fact and agree with it.
Is there any difference between them? Of course not, they're saying the same thing, but in a different linguistic style. It does take a bit of work to recognize that as most people have fairly deep biases towards linguistic style that are difficult to suppress. As an exercise to prove this to yourself, try sum up the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect in a way that would appeal to a non-academic.
Here's the interesting part: Trump picked up this linguistic style only in the last few years. While we don't like it, his voter base probably wouldn't have voted for him if he started his sentences "briefly stated". Know your audience, often the presentation of your argument is far more important than the argument itself.
Yes, probably, but remember - you have way more hashing power still. So you just swap to their new fork and beat them out there too, and you keep doing it until they give up and are forced to accept your fork as the truth.
I'd guess one option would be to build a ban for China into the new fork directly, but that would be easy to bypass with VPNs. Ultimately, if you have the hashing power, you own it. Bitcoin can't keep invalidating winning forks forever as it's a war they lose on each step of the way.
I'd think a more useful statistic would be the amount of USD actually moved out of bitcoin exchanges rather than trades on the exchanges themselves.
http://www.baeldung.com/java-9-compact-string
UTF16 is not really a curse for languages that require it. String operations in non-English languages are very fast because of it, and most software these days has to deal with localization.
Because of democracy.
The rest of your points are good and I agree with them. Just pointing out that "improve the life quality of those born with less potential" is probably not a goal most people strive for. I do hope I am wrong, but I don't believe I am.
While a noble goal, I don't believe this is a goal shared by the majority of the population. I think if you ran a poll between "improve the life quality of those born with less potential" and "improve the progress of humanity", the results would favor the later.
Is it better to bring fresh cold water to all, or hot and cold water to some? If it cost $100 to each person for either, I believe that those who possessed $100 would pay for hot water for themselves.
There's an argument for "do both", but that's not always realistic. Those without can force the issue with democracy, but if they force the issue too far, bad things are known to happen from history. I'd be wary of forcing it too far, but your opinion is your own.
Why do you think Zuckerberg telling lies you want to hear would be nicer? That seems counter intuitive to me.
Still, maybe we should publicize that allegations have occurred without specifying against who? And making it public if an organisation refuses to investigate. That should give the same public result without the need to attack someone who is only alleged.
But first step should be proving it, not blackballing someone because of allegations. I think we can all agree that removing someone who harassed is a good thing, while removing someone who is only alleged to have harassed is a bad thing. And that distinction probably needs to be made by someone qualified, not an activist or the general public.
I think Mozilla should look into getting him back before they all end up losing their jobs.